Hi, I would appreciate views of the experts in this area regarding a planning appeal decision which I find unusual.
The appeal concerned a two storey side extension right upto the boundary. The local authority rejected the application because of their concerns of causing a ''terracing effect''.
They also rejected a 3.9 metres single storey rear extension (a conservatory) due to causing ''unacceptable loss of light and adverse impact to the adjoining neighbour''.
The Planning Inspector rejected both arguments and confirmed that he did not share the Council's views on the grounds on which it had rejected the application.
However he dismissed the appeal on broader grounds that building upto the boundary (without leaving a metres space for access and maintenance) would harm the character and apperance of the area contrary to LP Policy and aspects of the advice in the DG.'' He was influenced by the PPS 1 which indicated that design which fails to take opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area should not be accepted. His main concern was that the other half of the semi had extended similarly but a metre away from the boundary. To build upto the boundary would upset the balance and symmentry of the pair of semis.
(1) Is it reasonable for an Inspector dismiss an appeal on grounds which are not even contemplated, let alone raised, by the Local Authority?
(2) Is it normal or reasonable for an Inspector dismiss the appeal against the second main point of the rear extension on grounds of his findings in relation to the first main point?
(3) Do you have any practical suggestions how best to proceed further.
Thank you for your comments and views.
The appeal concerned a two storey side extension right upto the boundary. The local authority rejected the application because of their concerns of causing a ''terracing effect''.
They also rejected a 3.9 metres single storey rear extension (a conservatory) due to causing ''unacceptable loss of light and adverse impact to the adjoining neighbour''.
The Planning Inspector rejected both arguments and confirmed that he did not share the Council's views on the grounds on which it had rejected the application.
However he dismissed the appeal on broader grounds that building upto the boundary (without leaving a metres space for access and maintenance) would harm the character and apperance of the area contrary to LP Policy and aspects of the advice in the DG.'' He was influenced by the PPS 1 which indicated that design which fails to take opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area should not be accepted. His main concern was that the other half of the semi had extended similarly but a metre away from the boundary. To build upto the boundary would upset the balance and symmentry of the pair of semis.
(1) Is it reasonable for an Inspector dismiss an appeal on grounds which are not even contemplated, let alone raised, by the Local Authority?
(2) Is it normal or reasonable for an Inspector dismiss the appeal against the second main point of the rear extension on grounds of his findings in relation to the first main point?
(3) Do you have any practical suggestions how best to proceed further.
Thank you for your comments and views.
Comment